Wikipedia

Talk:Who the Hell Is Edgar?

Latest comment: 1 month ago by Grnrchst in topic GA Review
Learn more about this page

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago41 comments2 people in discussion
PASSED
Issues with prose have been addressed. Article meets GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Who the Hell Is Edgar?/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Nascar9919 (talk · contribs) 19:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 15:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm more than happy to take this review on, as part of both Women in Green's 7th edit-a-thon and the GAN backlog drive. This was actually one of my favourite Eurovision songs of its year and the one that has gotten the most replay on my playlists, so I'm looking forward to learning more about it. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Grnrchst: Hey! Sorry for the late response on things. University midterms and an ongoing discussion in another project I'm working on that I'm heavily involved in (involves a dispute over what content should be allowed in a short of article) got in the way. Anyways, I got around to your comments. Let me know what you think. Thanks again for taking this on! :) Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 02:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

Background and composition

edit
  • Spotcheck: [1] Verified.
  • "Teya and Salena both met each other [...]" "both" and "met each other" are redundant. Just "Teya and Selena met each other" should be fine
  • "[...] Austrian television talent show Starmania 18 months prior to writing "Who the Hell Is Edgar?"." There should be a comma between "Starmania" and "18 months".
  • "to enter Salena into the Eurovision Song Contest" Was the songwriting camp or the song itself to enter her into the song contest? From the way this is put in the sentence, it's currently unclear.
  • Spotcheck: [2][3] Verified.
  • What lines included swear words? Why were the swear words removed?
  • ""Who the Hell Is Edgar?" was made with an hour left in the camp." They started writing it with an hour left? Or it was completed with an hour left? "Made" is too ambiguous.
  • "and was eventually chosen because it was "the best song of the day."" "Eventually" implies a long passage of time, but it doesn't seem like it took that long to decide. Also, the quote should be attributed to Teya.
  • Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
  • "According to the duo, they chose to reference American writer Edgar Allan Poe" No need to have an "according to the duo" if it's about their subjective writing process. You can just say "The duo chose [...]".
  • "because it rhymed with the song's melody" How can a name rhyme with a melody? I'm confused. Did it fit to the melody? Or did it rhyme with another word in the song?
  • "[...] and because of an experience a personal friend of theirs, Norwegian singer Elsie Bay, went through the night before writing the song in which she described as "when you write a really good song... and it doesn't feel like your work." This is a long run-on sentence that needs breaking up. It's unclear in its current form.
  • Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [4] Verified.
  • You should probably remove the Austrian flag emoji from the citations.
  • "is inspired on experiences" Should be "is inspired by experiences".
  • "The song is regarded as a satire of the music industry and is inspired on experiences both Teya and Salena have faced as women in the music industry along with groups of female poetry writers from the 1850s and 1860s who wrote poems that attempted to emulate Poe's writings, believing that the spirit of Poe had possessed them." This is another long run-on sentence that could do with being broken up a bit.
  • Spotcheck: [5][6] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
  • "they resign to the fact that they will depend off of" They'll depend on gas station champagne? As in they'll become addicted to gas station champagne? I don't think that's what the line is about. Please clarify.
  • "References to the payout of $0.003 per stream via music streaming services are mentioned, displaying a songwriter's lack of stable income. Eventually realising their total payout even if the song became a hit would be minimal, they resign to the fact that they will depend off of "gas station champagne", stating that "Edgar can not pay rent for me"; the lyrics bear a resemblance to Poe's life, who despite achieving literary success, earned little financial backing and died impoverished." Another very long run-on sentence that needs breaking up.
  • Spotcheck: [8] Verified.
  • "earned little financial backing" "Financial backing" implies investment, no? I think "earned little from his work" would do better.
  • Spotcheck: [9][10] Verified.
  • I think the detail about his work being plagiarised might also be relevant here.
  • "Over a month away before its official release," Remove "away", so it's just "Over a month before"
  • "According to the duo, they were left distraught" Again, "according to" implies it's a disputable detail, rather than the duo's subjective experience. You can just say "The duo said they were left distraught [...]".
  • "comparing it to" Better as "which they compared to"
  • Citation to this YouTube video needs more details, like the publisher and the timestamp from the video where they give this quote.
  • Spotcheck: [13] Can't find anything in here about it premiering on Ö3 radio. Is this information in another source?

Music video and promotion

edit
  • Perhaps the last paragraph of the "background and composition" section could be moved into this section, which could be retitled "Release and promotion"? Just a thought.
  • Spotcheck: [13][14] Ruy Okamura's involvement confirmed by Brainsister but he doesn't appear to be mentioned in Wiwibloggs?
  • I don't think "promotion" needs to be its own subsection if the section is only two paragraphs long and is already titled "Music video and promotion".
  • Spotcheck: [14] Verified.
  • "the duo escape from prison" Prison typically comes after sentencing, where it seems from the video and the article that they've just been arrested and are being held by police in pre-trial detention (i.e. "jail", not "prison").
  • Spotcheck: [15] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [16] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [17] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [18] Verified.

Critical reception

edit
  • "has been largely well received." Change "has been" to "was".
  • "several reviews from several critics" Trim to "reviews from several critics".
  • Spotcheck: [20] Verified.
  • "earning third out of 37 songs" Should say "coming third", not "earning third".
  • Spotcheck: [21] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [22] I think you're citing the wrong source here. This is about the Australian entry, not the Austrian entry.
  • The way ESC Bubble lists their rankings is... very weird. On the link for the Austrian entry, it only lists partial rankings. On the Australian link, they have the full rankings as they have ranked all songs by then. For some reason, they list their songs not like what Wiwibloggs did; instead, each time they rank a song, they input said song only into their rankings then (i.e. a link only having 7 songs because they have only ranked seven songs up to that point). To make matters worse, they don't have a singular link where all songs are ranked. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 02:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Spotcheck: [23] 8th seems to be referring to the bookies' odds on the song winning, not Lahav's personal ranking. Am I misreading?
  • Spotcheck: [24] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [25] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [26] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [27] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [29] Verified.

Eurovision song contest

edit
  • Spotcheck: [31] Verified.
  • "live casting" What does this mean?
  • Spotcheck: [34] Again, not seeing anything about Ö3 radio in this source.
  • Should be "the United Kingdom" I think.
  • Spotcheck: [35] Verified.
  • "ahead of San Marino's Piqued Jacks and before Albania's Albina Kelmendi." Is this necessary to mention?
  • For at least the countries, they're usually included in Eurovision song pages that are in GA status. Check Fuego (Eleni Foureira song) and Amar pelos dois for examples that I didn't have a hand in that include that. As for the inclusion of the artists, I can see the argument against it. I'd argue their inclusion as I have not gone through one GA review yet related to a Eurovision song that has mentioned this, but in general the Eurovision section does include some background on running order and some other things related to Eurovision. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 02:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Spotcheck: [36] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [37] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [38][39] Citations should be moved inline with the specific information they're verifying (i.e. ESC Plus for designers and ESC Beat for the black jacket and white top)
  • Spotcheck: [38] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [40] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [42] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [43] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [44] Verified.
  • "before Portugal's Mimicat" Again, do we need to mention who followed them?
  • Spotcheck: [49] Verified.
  • "the maximum given within the category was a set of seven points from Australia" Do we need to mention how Australia performed?
  • The Eurovision section has information related to voting, usually. Again, haven't gotten word about anything like this in any of the Eurovision-related GA reviews I've done.
  • "In response to their result, the duo stated satisfaction" Could say "The duo were satisfied with the result".

Charts

edit
  • No notes.

Release history

edit
  • No notes.

Lead and infobox

edit
  • No notes.

Checklist

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I enjoyed reading this article a lot and think it could get to GA with some work, particularly on prose.
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    There's quite a lot of prose issues, with long run-on sentences, problems with clarity and places where the grammar could be tightened up.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
    All good on the manual of style front.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    All references presented well, although I'd drop the Austrian flag emojis.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):  
    One case where the wrong source is apparently provided, another where citations could be moved closer inline.
    C. It contains no original research:  
    A couple instances where detail doesn't appear to be in the cited source.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
    No issues that I could find. Earwig only flags direct and properly attributed quotes.[1]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    Everything I'd expect to be covered is in here.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
    A couple cases where it loses focus on the song itself and goes into other aspects of Eurovision in the final prose section.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
    All good on the neutrality front.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
    Seems to be stable, last reversion was over a year ago. No major changes since GA nomination.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    All images in the body are in the public domain or released under valid CC licenses. Album cover has a valid non-free use rationale.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
    All relevant to the subject.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
    Holding for now until prose issues can be sorted. Ping me when you feel you've addressed everything. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
    @Nascar9919: Thank you for seeing to everything! All the issues holding it back from passing have been fixed, so I'm more than happy to pass this review now. Nice work on this article! --Grnrchst (talk) 11:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Who_the_Hell_Is_Edgar%3F&oldid=1250928796"